News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › Disparagement

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech... more +
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, preventing citizens from peacefully assembling, or interfering with citizens' ability to petition the government for redress of their grievances. The First Amendment is one of the most sacred aspects of the American legal tradition and has spawned a vast body of jurisprudence and commentary. less -
Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Supreme Court to Examine Free Speech Limits in “TRUMP TOO SMALL” Trademark Case

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

The intersection of free speech and private business branding is once again in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 5th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Vidal v. Elster, Case 22-704, an appeal from the...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Supreme Court finds censuring a board member didn’t violate First Amendment

Bricker Graydon LLP on

The Supreme Court ruled last week that a college board’s censure of a trustee did not violate the First Amendment. David Wilson was an elected member of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College (HCC) System...more

Sands Anderson PC

Supreme Court to Politicians: Toughen Up, Buttercup!

Sands Anderson PC on

What do you suppose the Supreme Court might tell a politician who filed a lawsuit complaining that other politicians said mean things about him? You might think the Court would say, “Toughen up, Buttercup!” Well, yesterday,...more

Bodman

Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

Bodman on

At a Glance - Even though the Supreme Court has paved the way for brands to register trademarks that may be considered disparaging, immoral, or scandalous, brand owners are reversing themselves and voluntarily changing....more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Top Five Labor Law Developments For November 2020

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) provided guidance on the propriety of mail or manual ballot elections. Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (Nov. 9, 2020). In this case, the NLRB set forth the considerations...more

International Lawyers Network

No Longer “FUCT” - Scandalous Mark Provision Struck Down By Supreme Court

International Lawyers Network on

What constitutes a “scandalous” trademark? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been grappling with this question since the enactment of the 1905 Trademark Act, later codified in the 1946 Lanham...more

International Lawyers Network

Should Scandalous Trademarks Be Registered?

International Lawyers Network on

Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business. What if the trademark is immoral or scandalous? Should you register your scandalous trademark with the U.S....more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on “Immoral or Scandalous” Trademark Prohibition

Snell & Wilmer on

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti regarding the constitutionality of the portion of Lanham Act, Section 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) that prohibits the United...more

BakerHostetler

Protected or Unprotected: The Supreme Court Hears Iancu v. Brunetti

BakerHostetler on

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether dirty words and vulgar terms may be registrable as trademarks – and if so, what is the test? Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act currently provides that the...more

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

The FUCT Mark: Is the Prohibition on Scandalous Marks Unconstitutional?

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market - February 2019: Trademark Practice Update: Outrageous! Disgraceful! Appalling!...or is it? SCOTUS to Decide the...

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Address Whether Trademark Protection Is Permitted for Immoral, Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) request that it address whether the prohibition of federal trademark protection for “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is invalid under...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Supreme Court To Decide Whether “Scandalous Clause” Passes Constitutional Muster

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Just over a year ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a century-old ban prohibiting the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from registering “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks...more

Kilpatrick

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks

Kilpatrick on

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in Iancu v. Brunetti. The USPTO seeks to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the prohibition on...more

Cooley LLP

Alert: SCOTUS to Decide If Ban on Scandalous Trademarks Is Unconstitutional

Cooley LLP on

On January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the United States Patent and Trademark Office's ("USPTO") appeal of In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In taking this case, it appears...more

Snell & Wilmer

How Scandalous! SCOTUS Again Takes up Whether the Lanham Act Violates the First Amendment

Snell & Wilmer on

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case that will decide whether the federal ban on trademark protection for “scandalous” material is unconstitutional. In re Brunetti follows the U.S. Patent...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Disparaging, Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks in the Supreme Court: Beyond Tam to Brunetti

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

This blog has followed the evolving judicial views concerning disparaging trademarks, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision in in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (June 19, 2017)....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The “F Word” Taking Center Stage at the U.S. Supreme Court

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Friday, while some of us may have been muttering a few bad words as we slogged through our post-holiday inboxes, the Supreme Court was toying with a naughty word of its own: FUCT. That’s right. Late last week the Court...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Speech Is Speech And It’s Protected - Tori Hester Analyzes Ninth Circuit First Amendment Ruling For Public Agencies In PublicCEO

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals offers a key reminder for public agencies: Even within a nonpublic forum, an individual’s and/or community’s Constitutionally protected freedom of speech cannot...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Ninth Circuit Finds Bus Ads Protected by First Amendment

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

The First Amendment protects an organization that wants to run ads with images of alleged terrorists on public buses, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit has ruled, reversing a Washington federal court judge....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Following SCOTUS’ Lead, the Ninth Circuit Strikes Down a Ban on “Disparaging” Ads

Robins Kaplan LLP on

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Seattle violated the First Amendment by banning “disparaging” ads on city buses....more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Public Bus Ad Gets A Free Ride - County Cannot Prohibit Ad Content Solely Because It’s Disparaging Or Potentially Disruptive,...

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

A county violated the First Amendment by refusing to display an advertisement related to global terrorism on its public buses, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held....more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Ninth Circuit Extends Tam 1st Amendment Protections to Advertising

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

The Ninth Circuit extended the First Amendment protections enunciated by the Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017) to advertising in American Freedom Defense Initiative, et al. v. King County (9th Cir. Sept....more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Scandalous Trademark Ban

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Just when we thought the unconstitutionality of the ban on disparaging and scandalous trademarks had been resolved, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is shaking things up....more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

For adults only: A peep at immoral and scandalous marks in the US

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

The landmark case, Matal v. Tam, forever altered the innocence of the trademark landscape. The case, interestingly enough, involved a musical group wanting to trademark a seemingly disparaging mark. ...more

172 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide